Category Archives: education

Why Your College Major Doesn’t Matter


Posted by ajlovesya

With only 55% of millennials employed–the lowest percentage since World War II–there is a pressing need to pinpoint the reason behind this depressing statistic.  After all, with this generation being the most educated, surely we all should be able to find employment, no matter what the economy is.  The consensus seems to be that if millennials are struggling, there is one reason: they don’t know how to choose the right college major.

It makes sense to me that professional track majors would yield higher employment statistics as there is often a clear path and clear opportunities.  This does not mean that those who chose liberal arts majors are doomed and I think the focus on college majors reinforces problematic thinking around careers:

1.  It implies that careers are linear. There are jobs today that didn’t exist years ago.  As a result of the weakening economy, we’ve realized that there is no such thing as economic security, prompting the rise of slash careers and side hustles.   In other words, the market is different and the older approach of school –> job –> career simply doesn’t apply any more.    This is especially true if you are interested in public service careers where a linear path never really existed.

2.  It reduces college to job training.  I majored in sociology and that is a small component of my college experience. I took some fabulous courses–some in subjects I was just curious about.  I spent nine months in South Africa.  I started blogging.  I had great internships.  I grew my network.  I created an experience that simply made me interesting and more competitive.  And this is the beauty of college.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many leaders across sectors–from Wendy Kopp to Mark Zuckerberg–started their innovative, groundbreaking businesses in college.  In college you have choices and can build yourself up in a way that’s not always possible outside of the ivory tower.

3.  It ignores the importance of excellence and self-determination (and implies that jobs are given, not earned):  Excellence and self-determination are key no matter where you are in your career, however they are especially important when you are just starting out.  No matter what you do, do it well, and do it with purpose.  Very few of us know exactly what we want to do when we graduate from college, yet you can still put your best efforts into your work and reflect on the skills, networks, and opportunities you have now earned as a result of that work.

So instead of harping on majors, why don’t we focus on integrating stellar career support programs into colleges?  Why don’t we expose people to opportunities and encourage them to act on these possibilities?

In the end, the career killers are lack of self-awareness and mediocrity, not the wrong degree.


Lessons from Marie Claire on Breast Cancer Awareness Lies and Cheating Nonprofits


Posted by ajlovesya

From Marie Claire

Just in time for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Marie Claire published an article exploring the $6 billion breast cancer research and awareness industry and the unscrupulous behavior of some charities. Of course we know that just because your organization may have 501c3 status, it does not automatically mean that you are operating for the benefit of the public. Yet the article explores something else that many social change makers may not consider: what happens when your cause becomes too popular?


What might seem like a dream—your cause being championed across sectors, nonprofits doing great work in this area are celebrated, various ways of engagement exist to allow better connection with the public—can quite easily become a nightmare. Specifically, you have folks simply jumping on the bandwagon of the cause du jour with the desire to make a quick buck. Whether in the form of outright stealing or clever financial accounting, the goal for some is to capitalize on the public’s good will, landing many nonprofits—including even the most diligent ones—in trouble as folks lose trust and take back their support.

However, while this problem is serious and can harm the public’s trust in both the cause and organizations working around it, it is not inevitable. Indeed, there are conversations happening throughout the sector that are forcing us to be more deliberate and transparent the potential for scamming and are important to examine as we push for greater public support of our causes:

The drawback to buying cause related goods

It has become all too easy for folks to simply sell pink items with no intention of giving proceeds to organizations that focus on the disease. Additionally, what may seem like cross sector collaboration and new ways of engagement are actually easier ways to deceive the public or have your cause co-opted (remember the KFC-breast cancer fiasco?) Some of this cannot be controlled, but some of it can in the form of more thoughtful corporate partnerships. How should nonprofits select corporate partners?

The growing ease of checking nonprofits

Better Business Bureau, Guidestar, Charity Navigator, GiveWell, and others all serve a similar function: to help the public make better choices about where their donations should go. While the process of measuring the effectiveness of nonprofits is constantly being tweaked (Charity Navigator just launched a new approach to assessing nonprofits) the rise of these types of organizations signals a shift in how we view nonprofits: not just as warm fuzzy places that do nice things, but as organizations with responsibilities that need to be held accountable. GiveWell in particular talks about “room for funding” in that some nonprofits and causes they examine do not need more money. Will more nonprofits embrace greater transparency?

The need for easier financial reporting and understanding

The article points that since 990s are prepared by nonprofits themselves and don’t always disclose key financial information (like how much is paid to consultants) they may not always be reliable. Of course, 990s are not always the easiest to read, can be a pain to complete, and some information may not be as necessary as the author claims. However, maybe the push for this information can spark a larger conversation on what information is necessary and how this information should be presented. For example, focusing on overhead is simply not the best way to measure a nonprofit’s effectiveness. We, in the sector, know this, yet how can we start working with the public to understand this and why this matters? How can we make nonprofit finance interesting and easy to understand and share?

Articles like the one published by Marie Claire may make us feel defensive and may make us hesitant about our attempts to raise awareness.  However, they are actually opportunities to clarify misconceptions,  talk about the work we do, and brainstorm solutions to do it more effectively. Isn’t that the point of raising awareness in the first place?

What’s your take on the article?


Philanthropy and Politics–A Complicated Mix?


Posted by ajlovesya

There has been a great deal of  conversation on education reform in DC now that Mayor Fenty is gone and his school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is likely to follow suit.  People have been examining the impact her tenure has had on education in DC and what has come under scrutiny is her relationship with foundations.  Teacher Ken of Daily Kos writes:

When she sought outside foundation money, it originally came with strings –  that if Rhee did not continue as head of the schools the foundations would not be obligated to meet the financial commitment they were offering.  Whether or not one agrees with Rhee’s ideas for the school system, such conditions should be unacceptable –  foundations have a choice either to commit funds or not to commit them, but they should not be allowed to dictate personnel decisions in the public sector merely because they have more money than the people served by that public sector.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of much of what we have seen from what Diane Ravitch has dubbed “the Billionaire Boys Club” of the likes of the foundations of Eli Broad, Bill and Melinda Gates (who have a number of former key members of their foundation at the top levels of the U. S. Department of Education under Duncan), The Walton Family, and others.

When I attended the Emerging Practioners in Philanthropy conference in April, there was a push for foundations to engage in social justice work and advocate for systemic changes that will better help the people many non-profits serve.  At the same time,  I wonder if the kind of relationship Gates, Broad, and Walton are creating with politicians is the kind of relationship we envision when it comes to promoting social justice.

Firstly, only certain foundations have this kind of pull. In other words,  I’m pretty sure it isnt just the money from the foundations that is attractive; it’s also the people behind the money.  These are all powerful people who have a great deal of influence.  As a result, this doesn’t come off as collaboration, where organizations that serve a similar population in a similar issue discuss ways to combine resources and efforts. Instead there is mounting resentment from teachers, parents, and communities about what they feel is happening to them instead of with them.

Secondly, should funding be attached to people in the first place? Politics are inherently  messy and if there is one things I took away from the primaries is that reform efforts are volatile. Once a candidate leaves, often the policies they created go with them.  Funding may influence the continuation of a person’s power that may be unwelcomed, where as programs can have new leaders or change direction when necessary.

And finally, are we setting up a situation where voices of other foundations will be drowned out of this conversation? Not just because they may not have the  money and influence of Gates Foundation, for example, but also because the way in which the conversation is being shaped requires a certain approach that other foundations may not agree with.  Can lasting change only come from working with politicians?  What role does the community play in this approach?

What do you think about the current role of foundations in politics?  Are there other examples of this kind of relationship?


Can Technology Solve the Texas Textbook Controversy?


Posted by ajlovesya

Beginning in the fall of this year, Texas State Board of Education will implement major changes to its school textbooks including “watering down” the rationale for the separation of church and state, the civil rights movement, America’s relationship with the UN and more.  While there has been a great deal of anger from all sides of the debate, when Texas announced this change in May, Dr. Steve Perry, principal and founder of Capital Prep where 100% of students (predominantly low-income and minority) graduate and go to four year colleges, argued on twitter that the issue is not the textbooks themselves, but rather, our reliance on them.

He brings up an interesting point. With so many young people using technology to access and share information, relying on textbooks appears outdated. Although the textbooks are symbolic in terms of what we consider to be critical knowledge to pass on to our children, knowledge is no longer only found in books. Instead of focusing on textbooks, we should explore how technology is changing the very definition of education and how harnessing technology can make learning more exciting and meaningful.

There has certainly been growing interest in technology and how it can change the way students learn. Schools are adopting laptop programs and installing white boards to improve access to technology and the internet. Additionally, e-textbook companies are booming, as is the usage of online classes at the college and high school level.

However, is the emphasis on technology a bit too idealistic, especially when the Texas textbook issue is concerned? Technology does not replace the importance or impact of instruction. We can stop relying on textbooks but that doesn’t mean problematic messages won’t be taught or that technology will be used efficiently. Both the materials and the method of instruction can, and probably are, determined by the state as is what success looks like when it comes to technology in the classroom. In fact the use of technology has not seen universal success in the classroom.

Perhaps the power of technology is best seen outside of the school. Students now have the ability to go beyond what it being taught in the classroom. Given the controversy around the changes in curriculum and textbooks in Texas, I hope conversation will persist in a way that students cant help but want to know more, and investigate the changes themselves. This will rest on how involved people–community members, after school programs, families, and the students themselves–are outside of the school to spark and sustain an interest in learning more.

Should we be emphasizing technology usage outside rather than inside school? Can drastic changes in textbook and curriculum as seen in Texas limit the role of technology in education? Are we emphasizing technology too much in school?


Advice on Grad School Admissions–What’s Your Take?


Posted by ajlovesya

On Monday YNPN-NYC and Kaplan hosted a workshop on how to navigate the grad school admissions process.  It was a fast paced and fun session full of valuable information, resources, and tricky logic problems (yes, to get a sample of the insanity present in grad school admissions exams!).  While I dont intend on going to grad school anytime soon, I wanted to share some highlights from the session and encourage you to check out upcoming free workshops by Kaplan (just click on the test you plan to take, fill in your zipcode, and sign up!).

1.  Be clear about your motivation: Essentially when applying you’ll have to answer three questions: 1.  Why grad school?  2.  Why this particular school/program over others?  3.  Why now?   You should answer these questions for yourself as well!

2.  Manage the process: If you intend on applying  to several schools, it can be overwhelming.  It’s estimated you’ll spend 100 hours studying for an exam and 40 hrs for each application.  Develop a system to manage this.  It can be as simple as an excel spreadsheet that states the name of the schools to which you are applying, what each school needs for admission, date they are due, and when you submitted.

Beyond the technical aspects of managing time, manage the process by getting to know people and getting your foot in  the door early.   Research each school; network with alumni, faculty, and current students (to do this, look at events the school is having or where faculty might be speaking); set up informational interviews.  Dont assume being qualified is enough to get you in–what separates you from everyone else?

3.  Make your experience work for you: In your application highlight all of your accomplishments and connect your work, life, and school experiences to your story of why you should be admitted to that school.  Dont be modest or diminish the work youve done.

4.  Help your recommenders help you: Applying to grad school may force you to dust off old relationships with professors from undergrad, but why wait until then?  Keep in touch with professors who meant a lot to you–maintaining a relationship makes it easier for them to write about you.

When requesting a recommendation from anyone, let them know what you want to do in grad school.  Give them all the necessary materials and make it as easy as possible for them to write and submit your recommendation.  Feel free to send reminders if you know they havent submitted your recommendation, but dont be pushy or make demands.  And of course, the earlier you let them know the better

5.  Keep in mind what entrance exams really are: they measure learned skills not aptitude.  Meaning you can study for the exam and do well.  Exams like the GRE are adaptive (meaning difficulty of exam changes based on  your behavior) so if test gets easier, you probably failed.

These are just a few of the aspects of grad school admissions that we discussed.  If you applied to grad school what do you think of these recommendations?  Do you have a few of your own to share?